Tulane

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.1674th
  Defense+0.1820th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense41.9%40th
  Defense45.2%29th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3593rd
  Defense+1.358th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1786th
  Defense+0.1421st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1753rd
  Defense+0.2422nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.7%33rd
  Defense46.6%49th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.6%60th
  Defense42.0%4th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7029th
  Defense3.0428th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense22.1%22nd
  Defense19.6%48th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.9%50th
  Defense15.7%45th

Percentiles among the 130 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2017

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Tulane allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   GRAM
2. L
   NAVY
3. L
   OU
4. W
   ARMY
5. W
   TLSA
6. L
   FIU
7. L
   USF
8. L
   MEM
9. L
   CIN
10. W
    ECU
11. W
    HOU
12. L
    SMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulane.

Players, 2017

1. Jonathan BanksQB266 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 101st of 226 QBs
   0.78WAR0.27 to 1.22
2. Dontrell HilliardRB146 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 28th of 352 RBs
   0.50WAR0.37 to 0.64
3. Terren EncaladeWR46 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 184th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
4. Sherman BadieRB31 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 257th of 352 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
5. Darnell MooneyWR40 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 262nd of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.11
6. Zachary BlockP31 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 43rd of 95 punters
   0.05WAR0.00 to 0.12
7. Charles Jones IITE12 plays · +0.038 pts/play · 67th of 199 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.02
8. Glen CuielletteQB1 plays · +0.231 pts/play · 218th of 226 QBs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Tulane's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  39639685th of 130Roster talent: 396, 85th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  12312392nd of 130Recruiting: 123, 92nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  16%16%128th of 128Returning production: 16%, 128th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.7−5.794th of 128SP+ rating: −5.7, 94th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2017

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Tulane's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.21 of the 0.27 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. vs ARMYQ4 0:47 4th & 1 at ARMY 6, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−11.5 pts
2. vs CINQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at CIN 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. vs ARMYQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at ARMY 46, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. at FIUQ3 3:31 4th & 2 at TULN 30, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. at FIUQ4 3:13 4th & 8 at FIU 17, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
6. at FIUQ4 13:07 4th & 2 at TULN 10, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs ARMYQ4 5:32 4th & 8 at TULN 27, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs HOUQ3 11:38 4th & 3 at TULN 27, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

62nd of 130 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Tulane's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   GRAM
2. L

   NAVY
3. L

   OU
4. W

   ARMY
5. W

   TLSA
6. L

   FIU
7. L

   USF
8. L

   MEM
9. L

   CIN
10. W

    ECU
11. W

    HOU
12. L

    SMU

What moved it, 2017

Every game starts at Tulane's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−0.16
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.19
• Timeouts+0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.31

Game by game

• GRAMW 43-14 vs GRAM91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• OUL 14-56 at OU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• ARMYW 21-17 vs ARMY54% → 91%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position +3
• TLSAW 62-28 vs TLSA67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34
• FIUL 10-23 at FIU74% → 2%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −50, Timeouts −3
• USFL 28-34 vs USF18% → 9%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• MEML 26-56 at MEM16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −18
• CINL 16-17 vs CIN58% → 17%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −37, Clock −3
• ECUW 31-24 at ECU64% → 77%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +18
• HOUW 20-17 vs HOU24% → 88%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• SMUL 38-41 at SMU25% → 22%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position +3

Points of win probability, from Tulane's side.

Closest call

TULN 46-45 USC (2022) - Tulane dropped to a 2.4% win probability before pulling it out.